MovieChat Forums > White Bird in a Blizzard (2014) Discussion > Was the acting good...or terrible?

Was the acting good...or terrible?

posted 10 years ago by lrn-mai
19 replies | jump to latest

There is something really really peculiar that I can't put my finger on about the acting in this movie....I can't tell what the hell is going on and what they were wanting to go for in terms of stylization of acting. Like with traditional in-person theater, you'll see people exaggerate some aspects more - in order to project in a large stadium. Or with the 1920s-1940s they were purposely acting in old Hollywood's distinct theatrical style - which nowadays films want to echo here or there when wanting to give a respectful nod to the time period (hence Di Caprio's and others' acting in the Gatsby remake or various of the side actors' quirky style in Boardwalk Empire).

For some reason Eva Green was acting in that style. Christopher Meloni (go SVU!! w00t) was acting well; Shailene was sometimes acting well, sometimes being a bit forced; and a lot of the side actors were just outright forced and comical? I couldn't tell if they were purposely doing it to evoke a certain era. Or if there were just moments where the acting was just weird and almost brazenly fake and forced by the actors? Or is this just a feeling I'm getting? Maybe it was meant to be done that way because they wanted to make Green's mental state that much more obvious??

[–] laballatician 10 years ago

It's the 80s. All the characters are *beep* up on coke.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MariaDeluca 10 years ago

Shailene did good. I think she did the best she could. If i hadn't read the book a lot of her behavior may have been lost in translation to me.
Christopher was good. Eva was good, her accent annoyed me though.

As for side characters they were alright. Phil just wasnt great. Like Shiloh but I feel he did not do book Phil justice. Maybe that was the point for reasons.

[–] kidjay83 10 years ago

I think what really made this not a good movie was the writing .It just got too caught up in its own politics .It got tooo preachy and with its dialogue and too into its own head about philosophy

Let face it, people hate art movies. Especially when they are not expecting an art movie

[–] lrn-mai 10 years ago

I beg to differ- I find a lot of the movies I like are art/indies. The only rule of those types of films is that they need to be done by actual artists or at least by people who still know how to make good film - regardless of the mass appeal of the topic/execution.

It wasn't that I was opposed to any particular stylization - I just found that they had no consistency for it in this film. The acting was so weird...I think I'm conflicted mostly because I (a) have seen these actors perform perfectly fine in other movies and (b) find that maybe their acting was fine but the dialogue was just poorly written? Who knows. But it would seem that the general public is slowly beginning to agree that the movie could have been better (I think the score is steadily decreasing).

[–] kidjay83 10 years ago

the writing definitely had alot to do with it ,it was too metaphysical you can tell who ever wrote this was too into their own head .

Let face it, people hate art movies. Especially when they are not expecting an art movie

[–] rck1 10 years ago

I thought the acting was uneven. There were too many different styles of acting so that they didn't all look like they were in the same movie. This is most likely the director's fault. He is the one who should pull it all together and he didn't in my opinion. The pace was strangely slow.

[–] TheOtherUprising 10 years ago

Eva Green's performance really didn't fit at all with the rest. She didn't feel like a real person within that setting. I largely felt the same as the OP.

As has been mentioned the director probably gets a fair amount of the blame for that.

Christopher was good and Shailene was a bit uneven but pretty good as well.

Overall a below average movie with a weak ending.

[–] pato-espana 10 years ago

Kinda felt like Eva Green was an imaginary character, like she was not really there, like a parasite in the middle of a story of which she was supposed to be the main subject, the reason why Kat struggled, she was more of an impersonation of the devil of some kind. It just didn't feel like she was real.

[–] brnvillain 10 years ago

Terrible all around... Almost comical. I thought it was a joke for about a good 45 mins in.

[–] AdvanceIstheMan 10 years ago

Eva Green was distractingly bad. Maybe it was the direction, maybe it was the script, but scenes like the one at the end when she's laughing at the husband just seemed ridiculous and forced.

[–] nGx153 10 years ago

I agree with that sentiment for other scenes, but I thought the laughing was actually the most natural of them.

She despises him / doesn't love him, and to her the situation is just so pathetic that she can't stop laughing. I think he kills her because she's hurting his feelings, not because she's found out about him.

[–] soo_z_g 10 years ago

nGx153, agree 100%. Exactly as I thought.

[–] nihilistic_tyranny 10 years ago

I can almost guarantee there is a very similar thread on every Greg Araki film's IMDB board. I just chalk it up to Araki's personal style of directing, however perplexing it may be.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law!